Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-4- <br /> <br />The pond area which is located on the property would be filled. The remainder of the <br />pond which is located on the adj acent property would not be filled at the present time. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Mr. Membrez indicated that he was very concerned about having only one access off <br />Snelling Avenue and the traffic problems this would create. <br /> <br />Mr. Godron Edburg, architect representing Shelter Corporation, indicated that the developer <br />would be willing to include additional landscaping and berming on the west property line <br />bordering Snelling to protect the residents from the noise generated on Snelling Avenue, <br />If the Village desired, the developer would also be willing to include a fence on the <br />Snell ing Avenue frontage. <br /> <br />Mr. Edberg also stated that the developer would include whatever outdoor furniture is <br />necessary to provide space for adults to sit while they watch their children at play, <br /> <br />Mr. Marvin Trailer, 2896 North Albert, expressed concern that the access provided the <br />northeast corner of the property for emergency vehicles only would become an access to be <br />used by the residents and the public. It was his desire that the access be maintained in <br />such a way as to prohibit the use by the publ ic . <br /> <br />Mr. Jtm Uttley, Midwest Planning representative, outlined several concerns that he had in <br />regard to the proposal. <br /> <br />1. The site is vastly overbuilt for this type of building. The building form is <br />very similar to townhouse development and the Village Code permits up to 10 <br />units per acre in townhouse zoning districts. The density proposed for this <br />developnent is approximately double that amount. <br /> <br />2. The existence of a 1500 foot cuI de sac as access and ingress from a single point <br />on Snelling Avenue. <br /> <br />3. The lack of pedestrian access to major green areas, requiring residents to cross <br />parking lots and driveways. <br /> <br />4. The lack of adequate screening on Snelling Avenue. <br /> <br />5. The lack of fencing or screening on the east property line bordering the school <br />property. <br /> <br />Mr. Stroot emphasised that this was a 2~ story apartment complex and not a townhouse <br />development. <br /> <br />Mr. Pope indicated that his primary concern was that the density for this type of <br />development was too high. The building form as proposed is very stmilar to townhouse in <br />concept and a reduction to 15 units or less per acre would be more appropriate. He also <br />voiced concern regarding the traffic problem at Snelling Avenue. Mr. Pope indicated that <br />he would look favorably on the project if it contained about l5units per acre. <br /> <br />Mr. G. Johnson indicated that he would rather see this proposal constructed on the property <br />than the typical apartment complex. He felt that it was an acceptable developnent. <br /> <br />Mr. V. Jolmson indicated that he preferred to see a concept such as the one presented <br />utilized on the site instead of only one huge bui1ding~ however, he expressed concern <br />regarding the density. <br />